Should another Garda Commissioner resign?

blanch152

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Does any other country reward dishonesty?
Supt David Taylor in line for €100,000 lump sum on retirement

To be fair, that isn't rewarding dishonesty. He has earned that pension through his years' work for the Gardai, and hasn't been found guilty before any disciplinary enquiry.

He may yet be disciplined and lose some of his lump sum, and he may yet be subject to being sued by McCabe and others, but those are separate issues.

Under law, you can't just take away the pension a man has earned without due process. We have been through all of this argument before in relation to others. Even then, if he has been guilty of something for two years of his 40 years service, should be lose 1/20th of his pension only? Are the years of service without blemish to be disregarded?

Captain Obvious

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Does any other country reward dishonesty?
Supt David Taylor in line for €100,000 lump sum on retirement

You're suggesting the state should steal his pension money?

Water John

They should prosecute him and Callinan, not persecute as they did McCabe. After due process and hopefully conviction, throw them in a prison cell for a while. What both did was vile.

Seth Brundle

blanch152 wrote: »

To be fair, that isn't rewarding dishonesty. He has earned that pension through his years' work for the Gardai, and hasn't been found guilty before any disciplinary enquiry.

He may yet be disciplined and lose some of his lump sum, and he may yet be subject to being sued by McCabe and others, but those are separate issues.

Under law, you can't just take away the pension a man has earned without due process. We have been through all of this argument before in relation to others. Even then, if he has been guilty of something for two years of his 40 years service, should be lose 1/20th of his pension only? Are the years of service without blemish to be disregarded?

...and is sacking him out of the question?

blanch152

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...and is sacking him out of the question?

Nope, he should be sacked, but he would still be entitled to his pension and of course, to due process.

There are still unanswered questions from the Tribunal. Who instigated the campaign? Was it Callinan who ordered Taylor to do certain things? If so, Taylor has some sort of defence.

Was it Taylor who came to Callinan with the original rumour? Did Callinan act on the basis of information (now known to be false) supplied by Taylor which he believed to be true?

Were either of them acting on the basis of the Tusla report?

What they did was very wrong but in terms of culpability, there is a difference between spreading lies which you know to be untrue, and lies which you believe to be true. Spreading rumours is wrong, but spreading rumours you know to be false is worse.

It is a bit like accidental killing versus manslaughter versus murder. They are all wrong, but some are more serious.

It is in these grey areas of what we don't know that Callinan and Taylor will inevitably defend themselves.

James Brown

If you didn't carry out your duties to standard, in fact broke the public trust and acted like a scoundrel, do you deserve a state pension or should you just get a Social services basement level pension? It's like a reward for a job badly done with intent.

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you didn't carry out your duties to standard, in fact broke the public trust and acted like a scoundrel, do you deserve a state pension or should you just get a Social services basement level pension? It's like a reward for a job badly done with intent.

You should get what you are entitled to after 30 years working a hard job, what you agreed to when you signed up.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You should get what you are entitled to after 30 years working a hard job, what you agreed to when you signed up.

Working hard at what? Just questioning whether anyone found to have behaved so badly, doing a bad job with intent, shouldn't be penalised in some way? This wasn't Fitzgerald style incompetence, this was intentional wrong doing.

Seth Brundle

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You should get what you are entitled to after 30 years working a hard job, what you agreed to when you signed up.

Does the hard job that you agreed to when you signed up include campaigns against colleagues such as the one performed by Callinan & Taylor?
Calinan is gone but there should have been nothing stopping Taylor being given an instant dismissal!

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Working hard at what? Just questioning whether anyone found to have behaved so badly, doing a bad job with intent, shouldn't be penalised in some way? This wasn't Fitzgerald style incompetence, this was intentional wrong doing.

He should be punished, in the same way as any other worker would be. How many jobs do you know of where they can seize your pension for wrong doing?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Does the hard job that you agreed to when you signed up include campaigns against colleagues such as the one performed by Callinan & Taylor?
Calinan is gone but there should have been nothing stopping Taylor being given an instant dismissal!

Did he engage in those behaviours for the full 30+ years of service. I'd have no issue with him being sacked as long as proper procedures are followed.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

He should be punished, in the same way as any other worker would be. How many jobs do you know of where they can seize your pension for wrong doing?






Did he engage in those behaviours for the full 30+ years of service. I'd have no issue with him being sacked as long as proper procedures are followed.

No question he's due it. My query is should they be? This is a pension awarded by the state for years of service. If we find out after retirement or even before, that there was a breach in carrying out duties, an intent to carry out wrong doing, should they be penalised? I say yes. Maybe give them both their due pensions then the state might sue them? We should have something in place to ensure this isn't repeated. People like them seldom function in a vacuum. We know there are discrepancies in book keeping and their tender process is practically non existent, (no paper work). This is public money and the security of the public. But we'll hear more about 5 euro on the dole and that's the major problem with the state IMO.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No question he's due it. My query is should they be? This is a pension awarded by the state for years of service. If we find out after retirement or even before, that there was a breach in carrying out duties, an intent to carry out wrong doing, should they be penalised? I say yes. Maybe give them both their due pensions then the state might sue them? We should have something in place to ensure this isn't repeated. People like them seldom function in a vacuum. We know there are discrepancies in book keeping and their tender process is practically non existent, (no paper work). This is public money and the security of the public. But we'll hear more about 5 euro on the dole and that's the major problem with the state IMO.

If the breach of duties occurred over two days, should two days of the 30 years be deducted or the whole lot?

And what has discrepancies in book keeping and their non-existent tender process got to do with the findings of the Tribunal in relation to Taylor and Callinan? Are they the new Eoghan and Leo who are going to get blamed for all ills in this country?

Dinarius

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, he should be sacked, but he would still be entitled to his pension and of course, to due process.

There are still unanswered questions from the Tribunal. Who instigated the campaign? Was it Callinan who ordered Taylor to do certain things? If so, Taylor has some sort of defence.

Was it Taylor who came to Callinan with the original rumour? Did Callinan act on the basis of information (now known to be false) supplied by Taylor which he believed to be true?

Were either of them acting on the basis of the Tusla report?

What they did was very wrong but in terms of culpability, there is a difference between spreading lies which you know to be untrue, and lies which you believe to be true. Spreading rumours is wrong, but spreading rumours you know to be false is worse.

It is a bit like accidental killing versus manslaughter versus murder. They are all wrong, but some are more serious.

It is in these grey areas of what we don't know that Callinan and Taylor will inevitably defend themselves.

Isn’t there the issue of perjury in the High Court?

Didn’t he lie there? Or am I missing something?

D.

Captain Obvious

Dinarius wrote: »

Isn’t there the issue of perjury in the High Court?

Didn’t he lie there? Or am I missing something?

D.

Unlikely to be proven to a criminal standard.

blanch152

Dinarius wrote: »

Isn’t there the issue of perjury in the High Court?

Didn’t he lie there? Or am I missing something?

D.

It is very interesting to watch due process being thrown out the window whenever a public servant is accused of doing something wrong. Fire him, take his pension, the mob say. Yet, while there are findings of fact against Callinan and Taylor, there are defences available as I have alluded to in previous posts. All of the facts need to be established again in a disciplinary case, which is more akin to a criminal case, which as we all know, requires a higher standard of proof.

I have no doubt that a Tribunal would conclude that Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA, but would that secure a criminal conviction? No. On the balance of probabilities, he was a member of the IRA, but beyond a reasonable doubt? There lies the issue in punishing Callinan or Taylor. Taylor can say he acted under orders, thus introducing doubt. Callinan can say that his level of wrongdoing was less serious because he spoke in good faith on the basis of false information supplied by Taylor that he didn't know was false. Either might have enough to escape a criminal/disciplinary finding. The bigger difficulty for them is when McCabe sues them. That only requires balance of probabilities.

RustyNut

And let's hope he cleans out both of them altho I recon its Joe public tax payer who will be left on the hook.

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No question he's due it. My query is should they be? This is a pension awarded by the state for years of service. If we find out after retirement or even before, that there was a breach in carrying out duties, an intent to carry out wrong doing, should they be penalised? I say yes. Maybe give them both their due pensions then the state might sue them? We should have something in place to ensure this isn't repeated. People like them seldom function in a vacuum. We know there are discrepancies in book keeping and their tender process is practically non existent, (no paper work). This is public money and the security of the public. But we'll hear more about 5 euro on the dole and that's the major problem with the state IMO.

Employment law around any employee entitlements (be they public or private sector, and be it wages/salary or pension or other contracted benefits) generally don't have any provision for clawback of anything earned up to the date that a suspension or termination occurs.

Employment law is heavily weighted towards the employee's rights as opposed to their responsibilities, and it would take some fairly fundamental redrafting of our employment laws to bring in a possibility to strip someone of any benefits they've accrued over their term of service.

Even when looking to fire them, the hoops that have to be jumped through are highly bureaucratic, and any small mistake ends up in the former employee suing and winning an unfair dismissal suit. Much easier to offer them the chance to resign to avoid that risk.

What the State does need to be better in doing is to refuse to indemnify any employees (or former employees) who are found to have been in breach of their duties or to have been grossly negligent. Let them bear their own costs if sued, and the State should also pursue them for any costs that the State ends up incurring as a result of their negligence.

Edward M

blackwhite wrote: »

Employment law around any employee entitlements (be they public or private sector, and be it wages/salary or pension or other contracted benefits) generally don't have any provision for clawback of anything earned up to the date that a suspension or termination occurs.

Employment law is heavily weighted towards the employee's rights as opposed to their responsibilities, and it would take some fairly fundamental redrafting of our employment laws to bring in a possibility to strip someone of any benefits they've accrued over their term of service.

Even when looking to fire them, the hoops that have to be jumped through are highly bureaucratic, and any small mistake ends up in the former employee suing and winning an unfair dismissal suit. Much easier to offer them the chance to resign to avoid that risk.

What the State does need to be better in doing is to refuse to indemnify any employees (or former employees) who are found to have been in breach of their duties or to have been grossly negligent. Let them bear their own costs if sued, and the State should also pursue them for any costs that the State ends up incurring as a result of their negligence.

Where would you stop the buck though.
Saying its alright to follow them for any loss the state incurred, would our politicians be culpable for that as well, the minister in charge is the absolute head of that department.
Maybe we could follow FF and the greens for the losses after the collapse?

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Where would you stop the buck though.
Saying its alright to follow them for any loss the state incurred, would our politicians be culpable for that as well, the minister in charge is the absolute head of that department.
Maybe we could follow FF and the greens for the losses after the collapse?

Callinan and Taylor haven't been convicted of any crime, yet there is a mob out there wanting to strip them of their pensions. Where does this lead?

A number of public servants have been convicted of rape and sexual abuse. Why aren't their pensions taken off them and given to their victims?

What about burglars? Should any convicted burglar be forced to give up any payment from the State - State pension, social welfare, education grant etc. - as reparations for his victims?

The concept of people paying in personal financial terms for their wrongdoing is not one that is widely accepted or widely practiced within the State or within the judicial system. Until it is, selecting one group - gardai or Ministers - and making them pay is unfair.

blackwhite

Edward M wrote: »

Where would you stop the buck though.
Saying its alright to follow them for any loss the state incurred, would our politicians be culpable for that as well, the minister in charge is the absolute head of that department.
Maybe we could follow FF and the greens for the losses after the collapse?

I probably should have phrased it better. It should be applied in cases of knowingly breaching their duties/terms of employment, or in cases where they were willfully negligent (i.e. they deliberately ignored strong evidence of the negative consequences of an action/decision, or deliberately took an option that was less favourable to the State in order to further personal gain, etc.).


For employees, if they can be shown to have been knowingly in breach of their contract, or willfully negligent then I don't see why whey shouldn't be pursued personally. As above, simple incompetence wouldn't cut it - you'd need to be able to show the prior knowledge or intent element as well.

I'd say the same for politicians (with the exception that they don't have a "contract" to be in breach of). If they can be shown to have been willfully negligent, then they should be pursued for the costs they've caused the State to have to bear.

The problem comes to proving the willful part of willful negligence. Unless there's a "smoking gun" á la Lowry then it can be hard to prove malfeasance as opposed to simply being out of their depth.

It becomes easier to prove when someone has acted contrary to their contracts - easy to prove someone knew (or should know) what the terms of their employment are.

James Brown

Yes. Shown to have willfully neglected to carry out their remit. For politicians, it would need be wilfully doing something (like the behaviour of Naughton and Noonan, up for debate of course) outside of their remit which is shown to work against the public interest or the remit of their office.
Such as Callinan and Taylor but not Fitzgerald, it wouldn't cover genuine gross incompetence.

blanch152

blackwhite wrote: »

I probably should have phrased it better. It should be applied in cases of knowingly breaching their duties/terms of employment, or in cases where they were willfully negligent (i.e. they deliberately ignored strong evidence of the negative consequences of an action/decision, or deliberately took an option that was less favourable to the State in order to further personal gain, etc.).


For employees, if they can be shown to have been knowingly in breach of their contract, or willfully negligent then I don't see why whey shouldn't be pursued personally. As above, simple incompetence wouldn't cut it - you'd need to be able to show the prior knowledge or intent element as well.

I'd say the same for politicians (with the exception that they don't have a "contract" to be in breach of). If they can be shown to have been willfully negligent, then they should be pursued for the costs they've caused the State to have to bear.

The problem comes to proving the willful part of willful negligence. Unless there's a "smoking gun" á la Lowry then it can be hard to prove malfeasance as opposed to simply being out of their depth.

It becomes easier to prove when someone has acted contrary to their contracts - easy to prove someone knew (or should know) what the terms of their employment are.

Let me think about this.

Imagine you are a shop assistant and you open the cash register for someone who asks for change (only supposed to open it for purchases so you are wilfully negligent) and the person asking reaches over and grabs money and runs out the door. Having been wilfully negligent, should you be fired?

Seth Brundle

blanch152 wrote: »

Let me think about this.

Imagine you are a shop assistant and you open the cash register for someone who asks for change (only supposed to open it for purchases so you are wilfully negligent) and the person asking reaches over and grabs money and runs out the door. Having been wilfully negligent, should you be fired?

You are mixing two different scenarios.
Taylor orchestrated a smear campaign against a colleague in order to discredit him and his allegations of corruption and illegality going on within the force. This was bad enough.
However, during the inquiry into same, Taylor then was “deceitful”, had “lied” to the Tribunal and had given “daft evidence”.
It is nothing like a customer reaching in and grabbing money out of a till!

blanch152

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You are mixing two different scenarios.
Taylor orchestrated a smear campaign against a colleague in order to discredit him and his allegations of corruption and illegality going on within the force. This was bad enough.
However, during the inquiry into same, Taylor then was “deceitful”, had “lied” to the Tribunal and had given “daft evidence”.
It is nothing like a customer reaching in and grabbing money out of a till!

The argument is being made that wilful negligence (let's leave aside how it would be proved) should result in dismissal and withholding of pension. I am applying that principle more widely than Gardai.

There are teachers convicted of vile crimes who still get pensions.

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You are mixing two different scenarios.
Taylor orchestrated a smear campaign against a colleague in order to discredit him and his allegations of corruption and illegality going on within the force. This was bad enough.
However, during the inquiry into same, Taylor then was “deceitful”, had “lied” to the Tribunal and had given “daft evidence”.
It is nothing like a customer reaching in and grabbing money out of a till!

Maybe if you used shop resources to spread rumours that someone grabbed out of the till and you're the security guard.

blackwhite

blanch152 wrote: »

Let me think about this.

Imagine you are a shop assistant and you open the cash register for someone who asks for change (only supposed to open it for purchases so you are wilfully negligent) and the person asking reaches over and grabs money and runs out the door. Having been wilfully negligent, should you be fired?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum :rolleyes:


The different between wilfull negligence and an innocent mistake seems to have flown over your head a bit there.

Are you trying to argue that the above is the same thing as abusing your position to spread malicious rumours (that you know to be false) that someone is a child abuser, and opening your employer to the possibility of legal action from the person that you have defamed?

blackwhite

blanch152 wrote: »

The argument is being made that wilful negligence (let's leave aside how it would be proved) should result in dismissal and withholding of pension. I am applying that principle more widely than Gardai.

There are teachers convicted of vile crimes who still get pensions.

Where did I claim that?

I expressly stated that it's nigh on impossible to withhold any benefits that have accrued over their period of service.


Taking legal action to recover costs/damages that somebody has caused their employer to incurr by way of either willful negligence, or knowingly breaching their terms of employement is very different.

James Brown

This is brought to the fore by Callinan and Taylor's actions, the discussion is should such actions be penalised, be it pension or other form? And it wouldn't just pertain to Garda. In this instance it does of course. It goes back to accountability.

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is brought to the fore by Callinan and Taylor's actions, the discussion is should such actions be penalised, be it pension or other form? And it wouldn't just pertain to Garda. In this instance it does of course. It goes back to accountability.

But why should they be punished above and beyond what any other person in the state would be?

blanch152

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But why should they be punished above and beyond what any other person in the state would be?

It is a bewildering argument. If a CEO of a major company is wilfully negligent, they give him a big package and shuffle him off. But public servants must be hung, drawn and quartered while the pension they have worked for and earned over 40 years must be taken away, even if the mistake they are accused of (and not even proven) only took up a tiny proportion of that 40 years.